Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ard.Biesheuvel@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] arm64: avoid out-of-line ll/sc atomics
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 11:08:03 +0100
Message-ID: <20190517100802.GS8268@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190517072401.GI2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 09:24:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:53:39PM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > When building for LSE atomics (CONFIG_ARM64_LSE_ATOMICS), if the hardware
> > or toolchain doesn't support it the existing code will fallback to ll/sc
> > atomics. It achieves this by branching from inline assembly to a function
> > that is built with specical compile flags. Further this results in the
> > clobbering of registers even when the fallback isn't used increasing
> > register pressure.
> > 
> > Let's improve this by providing inline implementatins of both LSE and
> > ll/sc and use a static key to select between them. This allows for the
> > compiler to generate better atomics code.
> 
> Don't you guys have alternatives? That would avoid having both versions
> in the code, and thus significantly cuts back on the bloat.

Yes we do.

Prior to patch 3 of this series, the ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN macro used
ALTERNATIVE to either bl to a fallback ll/sc function (and nops) - or execute
some LSE instructions.

But this approach limits the compilers ability to optimise the code due to
the asm clobber list being the superset of both ll/sc and LSE - and the gcc
compiler flags used on the ll/sc functions.

I think the alternative solution (excuse the pun) that you are suggesting
is to put the body of the ll/sc or LSE code in the ALTERNATIVE oldinstr/newinstr
blocks (i.e. drop the fallback branches). However this still gives us some
bloat (but less than my current solution) because we're still now inlining the
larger fallback ll/sc whereas previously they were non-inline'd functions. We
still end up with potentially unnecessary clobbers for LSE code with this
approach.

Approach prior to this series:

   BL 1 or NOP <- single alternative instruction
   LSE
   LSE
   ...

1: LL/SC <- LL/SC fallback not inlined so reused
   LL/SC
   LL/SC
   LL/SC

Approach proposed by this series:

   BL 1 or NOP <- single alternative instruction
   LSE
   LSE
   BL 2
1: LL/SC <- inlined LL/SC and thus duplicated
   LL/SC
   LL/SC
   LL/SC
2: ..

Approach using alternative without braces:

   LSE
   LSE
   NOP
   NOP

or

   LL/SC <- inlined LL/SC and thus duplicated
   LL/SC
   LL/SC
   LL/SC

I guess there is a balance here between bloat and code optimisation.

> 
> > These changes add a small amount of bloat on defconfig according to
> > bloat-o-meter:
> > 
> > text:
> >   add/remove: 1/108 grow/shrink: 3448/20 up/down: 272768/-4320 (268448)
> >   Total: Before=12363112, After=12631560, chg +2.17%
> 
> I'd say 2% is quite significant bloat.

Thanks,

Andrew Murray

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply index

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-16 15:53 Andrew Murray
2019-05-16 15:53 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] jump_label: Don't warn on __exit jump entries Andrew Murray
2019-05-16 15:53 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] arm64: Use correct ll/sc atomic constraints Andrew Murray
2019-05-16 15:53 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] arm64: atomics: avoid out-of-line ll/sc atomics Andrew Murray
2019-05-16 15:53 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] arm64: avoid using hard-coded registers for LSE atomics Andrew Murray
2019-05-16 15:53 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] arm64: atomics: remove atomic_ll_sc compilation unit Andrew Murray
2019-05-17  7:24 ` [PATCH v1 0/5] arm64: avoid out-of-line ll/sc atomics Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-17 10:08   ` Andrew Murray [this message]
2019-05-17 10:29     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-22 10:45       ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-22 11:44         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-05-22 15:36           ` Andrew Murray
2019-05-17 12:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-17 12:19       ` Ard Biesheuvel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190517100802.GS8268@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=andrew.murray@arm.com \
    --cc=Ard.Biesheuvel@arm.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/0 linux-arm-kernel/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1 linux-arm-kernel/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-arm-kernel linux-arm-kernel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel \
		linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org infradead-linux-arm-kernel@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-arm-kernel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox